DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 9/26/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the IDS contains a US published application that does not exist (US 2006/090706). It has been placed in the application file, but the information of the US published application referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I, claims 1-6 and 14-20, in the reply filed on 9/18/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that no serious search burden exists. This is not found persuasive because Species I is classified in CPC C23C16/4585 for a deposition ring, Species II in H01J37/3411 for a process kit, and Species III in H01J37/32715 for a process chamber; thus the Species have different classifications (e.g. classes/subclasses) which also require different fields of search such as different search strategies or search queries. As such, a serious search burden has been established according to MPEP 808.02.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 9/18/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the upper surface of the inner lip". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-6 are also rejected as depending on claim 1.
Claim 3 (dependent on claim 1) recites “an upper surface of the inner lip” (emphasis added), rendering claim 3 indefinite as to whether the “upper surface of the inner lip” is intended to refer to “the upper surface of the inner lip” of claim 1, or a distinct ‘upper surface of the inner lip’ thereof
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 14, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johanson et al (US 2017/0002461) in view of Tiller et al (US 2007/0283884).
With respect to claims 1-2 and 14, Johanson teaches in fig. 2 a deposition ring [118] comprising: an annular band [215] having upper and lower surfaces, wherein the annular band includes radially inner and outer portions (para 0020 and 0022); an inner lip [250] extending upwards from the upper surface of the annular band [215] and adjacent an inner surface of the annular band [215], wherein an inner surface of the inner lip [250] and the inner surface of the annular band [215] together form a central opening of the deposition ring [118], wherein an upper surface [222] of the inner lip [250] is an uppermost surface of the deposition ring [118] (para 0022 and 0024); a channel [212] disposed radially outward of and beneath a lowermost surface of the annular band [215] (para 0025); and an outer lip [214] extending upwardly and disposed radially outward of the channel [212], wherein an upper surface of the outer lip [214] is disposed vertically below the lower surface of the annular band [215], wherein the channel [212] is defined by a first leg extending downward from the annular band [215], and a second leg extending radially outward from a lower portion of the first leg, and the outer lip [214] extending upward from a radially outer portion of the second leg (para 0023 and 0025). The cropped figures below of Applicant’s fig. 3 and Johanson’s fig. 2 serve to clarify similar structures of the annular band, inner lip, channel, and outer lip.
PNG
media_image1.png
391
773
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However Johanson is limited in that the deposition ring [118] including “a step that extends downward from the radially inner portion to the radially outer portion so that a thickness of the annular band increases from the radially inner portion to the radially outer portion” is not suggested.
Tiller teaches in fig. 2 a deposition ring [80] comprising: an annular band [83], an inner rim (i.e. inner lip) [93], an opening (i.e. channel) [94], and an outer lip radially outside of the channel [94] (para 0031-0033), similar to the deposition ring [118] of Johanson. Tiller further depicts in fig. 2 the deposition ring [80] comprises a “footing” (i.e. claimed “step”) [89] on a lower surface of the annular band [83], wherein the step [89] extends downward from radially inner and outer portions of the annular band [83], such that a thickness of the annular band [83] increases from the radially inner portion to the radially outer portion, the step [89] is approximately closer to a radially outermost surface of the annular band [83] than a radially innermost surface of the annular band [83], and the step [89] is integral with the deposition ring [80] (and thus integral with the first leg of Johanson) (para 0089). Tiller cites the advantage of the step [89] as supporting “the band 26” on a ledge [21] (para 0032) (NOTE: detail “26” is referred to as the deposition ring [26] at para 0013 and 0016-0017 that also has a footing or step [36]; as such, “the band 26” is considered as the deposition ring [80] having the step [89]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the footing (i.e. step) of Tiller into the deposition ring [118] of Johanson to gain the advantage of supporting the deposition ring [118] on a ledge [135] of substrate support [130] in Johanson’s fig. 2.
With respect to claim 4, modified Johanson further shows in fig. 2 an upper surface of the outer lip [214] is disposed beneath the lower surface of the annular band [215] at the radially outer portion (para 0023 and 0025).
With respect to claim 5, modified Johanson further shows in fig. 2 the annular band [215] having a thickness; it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04, IV, A). In this case, the deposition ring [118] would function similarly regardless of the thickness of the annular band [215] of the deposition ring [118].
With respect to claim 16, modified Johanson further shows in fig. 2 an entirety of the upper surface of the annular band [215] as substantially flat (para 0022-0023).
With respect to claims 17-19, modified Johanson further shows in fig. 2 the inner lip [250] as having a width that is less than a width of the outer lip [214] (para 0022-0024); it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04, IV, A). In this case, the deposition ring [118] would function similarly regardless of widths of the inner and outer lips [250],[214] and radially inner portion of the annular band [215] of the deposition ring [118].
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johanson et al (US 2017/0002461) and Tiller et al (US 2007/0283884) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Brown et al (US 8,221,602).
With respect to claims 3 and 15, the combination of references Johanson and Tiller is cited as discussed for claims 1 and 14.
However the combination of references is limited in that while Johanson suggests a depth between an upper surface of the annular band [215] and a horizontal portion of an upper surface [222] of the inner lip [250] is present at about 24-38 mm to accommodate about 10 mm of material deposition (para 0024), the depth being 6.0-12.0 mm is not specifically suggested.
Brown teaches in fig. 6 a deposition ring [620] comprising: body (i.e. annular band) [252]; an inner wall (i.e. inner lip) [260]; a channel [266]; and a leg (i.e. outer lip) [272] (Abstract; col. 8 lines 49-66), similar to the deposition ring [118] of Johanson. Brown further depicts in fig. 6 a particular depth between an upper surface of the annular band [252] and a horizontal portion of an upper surface of the inner lip [260] is about 0.45 inches (11.43 mm) (col. 8, lines 65-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to incorporate the particular depth 11.43 mm of Brown as the depth of the combination of references to yield the predictable result of accommodating about 10 mm for material deposition as desired by Johanson at para 0024.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johanson et al (US 2017/0002461) and Tiller et al (US 2007/0283884) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Chung et al (US 2015/0047563).
With respect to claims 6 and 20, the combination of references Johanson and Tiller is cited as discussed for claims 1 and 14.
However the combination of references is limited in that the outer lip [214] of Johanson including slots is not specifically suggested.
Chung teaches applying a pattern of grooves (i.e. slots) to top surfaces of a deposition ring in order to reduce material deposition on the deposition ring in addition to reduce contamination of a processing chamber (Abstract; para 0005 and 0020; claim 11), the slots fully capable of receiving a clamp assembly.
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have top surfaces of the deposition ring [118] (which includes the upper surface of the outer lip [214]) of the combination of references to have slots as taught Chung to gain the advantages of reducing both material deposition on the top surfaces of the deposition ring [118] in addition to contamination of a process chamber using the deposition ring [118].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 and 14-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,961,723. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the US Patent are narrower in scope than the claims of the current invention, and encompass the subject matter of the current claims. Therefore, any reference meeting the limitations set forth in claims 1-17 of the US Patent would also meet the requirements set forth in claims 1-6 and 14-20 of the current invention.
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,581,167 in view of US Patent No. 8,221,602. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the 11,581,167 are narrower in scope than the claims of the current invention, and encompass the subject matter of the current claims, with 8,221,602 teaching to one of ordinary skill to have the deposition ring have a depth between an upper surface of the annular band and a horizontal portion of an upper surface of the inner lip be about 0.45 inches (11.43 mm) (col. 8, lines 65-66). Therefore, any reference meeting the limitations set forth in claims 1-20 of the 11,581,167 in view of 8,221,602 would also meet the requirements set forth in claims 1-6 and 14-20 of the current invention.
Claims 1-6 and 14-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,103,012 in view of US Patent No. 8,221,602. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the 10,103,012 are narrower in scope than the claims of the current invention, and encompass the subject matter of the current claims, with 8,221,602 teaching to one of ordinary skill to have the deposition ring have a depth between an upper surface of the annular band and a horizontal portion of an upper surface of the inner lip be about 0.45 inches (11.43 mm) (col. 8, lines 65-66). Therefore, any reference meeting the limitations set forth in claims 1-20 of the 10,103,012 in view of 8,221,602 would also meet the requirements set forth in claims 1-3 and 6-9 of the current invention.
Claims 1-6 and 14-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,103,012 in view of US Patent No. 8,221,602. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the 10,103,012 are narrower in scope than the claims of the current invention, and encompass the subject matter of the current claims, with 8,221,602 teaching to one of ordinary skill to have the deposition ring have a depth between an upper surface of the annular band and a horizontal portion of an upper surface of the inner lip be about 0.45 inches (11.43 mm) (col. 8, lines 65-66). Therefore, any reference meeting the limitations set forth in claims 1-20 of the 10,103,012 in view of 8,221,602 would also meet the requirements set forth in claims 1-6 and 14-20 of the current invention.
Claims 1-6 and 14-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Design Patent No. 888,903 in view of MPEP 804, Section II, Part B, #4, and US Patent No. 8,221,602 particularly since claims 1-6 and 14-20 of the present application are direct to a deposition ring shown in fig. 3 read on a deposition ring shown in fig. 8 of the 888,903. Although 888,903 does not specify for the deposition ring a particular depth between an upper surface of the annular band and a horizontal portion of an upper surface of the inner lip, 8,221,602 teaches one of ordinary skill for the deposition ring to have this depth be about 0.45 inches (11.43 mm) (col. 8, lines 65-66), and that figs. 1 and 6 of 8,221,602 show that the deposition ring of 888,903 is fully capable of both being disposed on a substrate support with the annular band resting on a lower ledge of the substrate support. The cropped figures below of Applicant’s fig. 3 and fig. 8 of 888,903 serve to clarify the similar (if not identical) structures of the deposition rings (including the depth of ~11.43 mm taught by 8,221,602).
PNG
media_image2.png
360
845
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A BAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL A BAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
